6 11. The High Court further held that the accused, during their examination under Section 313 CrPC failed to explain their conduct and even gave incorrect and false answers. It therefore affirmed the trial court’s conclusions and findings. 12. Upon examination of whether this case would fall in the category of “rarest of rare case” to justify the imposition of capital punishment on the appellants, the High Court was of the view that as the incident shook the collective conscience of the community and the acts of murder committed by the appellants were so gruesome, merciless and brutal, the aggravating circumstances far outweighed the mitigating circumstances and hence, this case fell under the category of rarest of the rare case which manifests society’s abhorrence of such crime. Contentions on behalf of the Appellants 13. Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing pro bono for Rahul and Manoj, contended that the evidence of witnesses, i.e., police witnesses and private witnesses in this case raise questions as to whether Neha was arrested at the time and at the spot claimed by the prosecution, whether her disclosure statements were genuine, whether the disclosures were made as claimed, and whether subsequent arrests and recoveries were in the manner claimed by the prosecution. 14. It was urged that PW-4 lady constable Banno Solanki deposed to having gone to the ATM machine, searched Neha, leading to recovery of Ashlesha’s ATM card. However, she contradicted the IO and other witnesses about the place of her interrogation. PW-4 deposed that Neha was interrogated at the Police Station where she said that some ornaments and ATM cards were in her house. This was confirmed by PW-6 Triyambak @ Prafulla and PW-36